THREATS AND RESPONSES: DIPLOMACY

THREATS AND RESPONSES: DIPLOMACY; U.S. Says U.N. Could Repeat Errors of 90's

By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: March 11, 2003

WASHINGTON, March 10—
The White House declared today that the United Nations Security Council's failure to act against Iraq would not only compound mistakes it made in the 1990's but would also encourage North Korea and Iran as they race to build nuclear arsenals.

Behind the scenes, however, President Bush telephoned around the world to try to build support for a new Security Council resolution authorizing force if Iraq fails to disarm by March 17.

But that effort was complicated by a declaration by President Jacques Chirac of France that ''whatever the circumstances, France will vote no.'' He stated unequivocally that he would veto any new resolution opening the way to war. Russia, also a veto-wielding permanent member of the Council, echoed that view.

Fearing defeat in the Security Council, Britain -- apparently with the Bush administration's reluctant acquiescence -- raced to offer compromises that might induce uncommitted Council members to vote in favor of military action. Chief among them is the listing of specific disarmament ''benchmarks'' that Saddam Hussein, Iraq's leader, would have to meet to avoid war.

''What people are asking us to do is define more precisely for them, to define what it is that would allow us to say, yes, he is cooperating, or not,'' Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said today. One such benchmark, he said, would be whether Iraq was allowing its weapons scientists to be interviewed outside the country.

There had been talk of bringing the issue to a vote as quickly as Tuesday, but that idea was discarded today as soon as officials realized how deeply the divisions ran. Now, a vote could be scheduled as early as Wednesday, but it is more likely to slip toward the end of the week.

Britain is also considering calls to extend a deadline beyond March 17, which several undecided nations have said would be essential. Exactly how far the deadline would be extended is uncertain. Britain may be willing to consider an extension of one or two weeks, officials said, while the undecided nations would prefer something closer to a month.

Administration officials are seeking a 9-vote majority on the 15-member Council both to avoid fueling contempt for the United States if Iraq is invaded and to protect Mr. Blair from a political backlash in Parliament over British participation in any offensive.

''It's a bigger problem for Blair than for us,'' a senior American official said, explaining why the administration sounded suddenly open to compromise today.

''A lot's in play,'' the official said. ''But no one knows how long a delay the president's willing to swallow. And he's not saying, except maybe to the very inner circle.''

The White House spokesman did nothing today to dismiss talk of compromise, saying, ''There are ideas that are being explored and looked at,'' and adding, ''It's too soon to say what the exact date will be.''

Still, Mr. Bush found himself caught today between war plans already under way and his desire for the moral authority that a majority Council vote would bring -- even if that vote were to be formally overturned by a French or Russian veto.

He has declared that no further United Nations action is necessary for an attack, and he insisted last week that Iraq posed such a threat to the United States that ''we really don't need anybody's permission.''

In The Hague today, the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, warned that American military action against Iraq in the absence of Council approval would ''not be in conformity with the U.N. Charter.''

Mr. Bush is clearly unimpressed by such arguments, his aides say, adding that he is also losing patience with the United Nations. Moreover, several experts in international law also rejected Mr. Annan's assertion, saying previous resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament already provide enough legal authority for war.

Mr. Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, made no effort today to minimize the breach between the White House and the United Nations -- clearly one of the most severe since the organization's founding after World War II. He essentially argued that Mr. Bush was within his rights to create an alternative, ad hoc organization -- out of whatever coalition of nations he could assemble -- to enforce the Council's past resolutions on disarming Iraq.

''If the United Nations fails to act, that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein,'' he said. ''Another international body will disarm Saddam Hussein.''

That marked the first time that Mr. Fleischer or any administration official had, on the record, tried to equate the authority of the Security Council with the ''coalition of the willing'' that Mr. Bush has talked about on many occasions. White House officials said the president had no intention of withdrawing from the Council, however.

''There are many ways to form international coalitions,'' Mr. Fleischer said later. ''The United Nations Security Council is but one of them.''

He accused the Council of standing by mutely in the 1990's during slaughters in the Balkans and Rwanda. He argued that if ''you judge legitimacy by whether the United Nations Security Council acted, then you would think you'd need to restore Slobodan Milosevic to power, because he was removed without the United Nations Security Council approval.'' Similarly, he argued, once Mr. Hussein is overthrown, ''the people of Iraq will know who to thank.''

At the Security Council today, members seemed unmoved by American questions about an Iraqi drone aircraft, discovered by inspectors, that may be able to disperse anthrax or other biological agents. The United States argued that the drone could travel farther than allowed under United Nations resolutions, and that its discovery was underplayed by Hans Blix, one of the chief weapons inspectors, in his presentation on Friday.

Mr. Blix said today, ''Iraq should have declared this vehicle.'' But he said it was unclear whether the drone was intended to deliver chemical or biological weapons, or whether it exceeded the 92-mile range limit.

Among the leaders Mr. Bush called today looking for votes were President Jiang Zemin of China -- who offered no support and seems closely aligned to France and Russia -- and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan. He also spoke to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Sultan Qaboos of Oman.

This afternoon, he spoke with Prime Minister José María Aznar of Spain, an author of the new American-British-Spanish resolution, and with the leader of the governing party in Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr. Bush hopes Mr. Erdogan will lead an effort to overturn the Turkish Parliament's refusal to allow American troops to use Turkey as a base for invading northern Iraq.

Much of the diplomatic effort is now focusing on three African countries currently sitting on the Security Council -- Cameroon, Guinea and Angola. France was heaping attention on them, and one American official feared that ''a bidding war could break out'' for their votes.

The prime minister of Pakistan, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, said tonight that it would be ''very difficult for Pakistan to support a war against Iraq,'' but he stopped short of declaring that his country would vote against the United States. Other officials, speaking privately, said Pakistan had decided to abstain, which would be a setback for Mr. Bush and his relationship with President Pervez Musharraf.

Photo: President Bush talked on the telephone yesterday with Prime Minister José María Aznar of Spain. At right is Condoleezza Rice, the security adviser. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)(pg. A10)